The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

This made me laugh ! Happy Friday everyone

[eFestivals]

Just seen the latest Daily Record poll. For any non-jocks, the fact the Daily Record are running this is a shock in itself. I still don`t believe it myself but they are talking about huge numbers of seats and their polling also showing support for Indy. The Record were of course the paper of " the vow ".

Hmmm, 51 vs 49 - there were better polls than that before the vote, wasn't there?

But also, it's easy to support world peace and momma's apple pie as an aspiration, which is all the current mass-indoctrination of 'Scotland will be better' really is. It's much harder to convince people that it really will be better when presented by a proper two sided argument with facts involved.

I reckon, if a real vote was held today it would probably be pretty similar to how it was back in Sept, but with improved support for 'no' as a consequence of the latest GERS. While I'm aware that plenty can shake that off in their normal fact-free manner, that's not how everyone works.

[LJS]

well, yes, I know you're talking tosh with the suggestions of people dying on the streets of Scotland, but i'm not talking tosh about the unanimous voting by the SNP of more money for themselves.

Or are you going to claim that the majority party in Holyrood voted against the pay rise that's just been voted thru?

The "pay rise" was agreed by all parties. What they have agreed is to remove the link to Westminster MP's salaries currently with a 11% rise pending (funnily enough - no decision will be made on that until after the election - i wonder why?)

"The Scottish parliament is to restrict future pay rises for MSPs after deciding that proposals at Westminster for a sharp rise in MPs' salaries are unjustified.

All five parties at Holyrood have agreed unanimously to end a long-running practice of pegging their pay to that of MPs, arguing that politicians have to show the same pay restraint as other parts of the public sector."

So they have agreed to take the same pay rise as the public sector which is a humungous 0.7%.

Now, if you wish to present replacing an 11% pay rise with a 0.7% pay rise as "voting for more money for themselves" you can - I think most reasonable people would see things differently.

As this was unanimously agreed by SNP, Tories, Labour, Libdems & Greens, it may just be stretching things a tad to present this as " the SNP have shown themselves as the same grubby self-serving fuckers as everyone else" but if that's how you see it that'll clearly be the same as the Labour "grubby self-serving fuckers " you think I should vote for .

& Scottish government ministers have been on a voluntary pay freeze since 2008.

"Ms Sturgeon's official spokesman later said she would only accept £135,605, maintaining Alex Salmond's voluntary pledge to freeze his salary at its 2008/9 level.

The difference will be returned to a general Scottish Government account.

It is understood cabinet colleagues have also agreed to continue a voluntary pay freeze and will hand back a portion of the £103,495 they are entitled to from next month."

So Neil, another example of how you are drifting ever nearer to a job with the Daily Mail- Hard hitting Neil hits the Jocks where it hurts.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/09/scottish-parliament-rejects-westminster-pay-rises

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/sturgeon-becomes-uks-best-paid-politician-on-paper.120874379

[LJS]

Too many points - many rather bizarre -neil continuing his campaign for his own daily mail column by conjuring up images of SNP MSP's mugging poor people & dishing out the proceeds to the middle classes - "free sushi for morningside"

I'll kind of ignore most of that nonsense as it relates to a long running conversation neil & I have been having about the desirability or otherwise of the universal provision of benefits. This used to be seen as a "good thing" And indeed one of the most significant, expensive & potentially more & more & more expensive of these "rob the poor - pay the rich" benefits - free personal care for the elderly - was introduced by Neil's Labour Party. So as ever nothing is ever as simple in the real world as it is on Planet Neil.

What I shall gladly address is Neil's constant complaints that I do not hold the SNP (who I allegedly support) to account in the same way I do with the Labour Party

There are a couple of reasons, why this might appear to be the case.

Firstly, and less importantly, there are enough people on this thread ripping the SNP to pieces (or trying to). in order to have a decent debate we need 2 sides and that really means me & comfy against 4 or 5 regular anti - nats plus a few occasional contributors. Now, this role is not hard as I genuinely believe most of you are way off the mark most of the time. So if I don't criticise the SNP as much or as often as you'd like it's because that is not my role here.

There is however a much more serious reason why I am so down on the Labour Party. It is because I see it as my party. Although i have never been a slavish, unthinking Labour voter, I have probably voted labour about twice as often as i have voted for all other parties combined. Broadly speaking, i believe in what the Labour Party believes in... or believed in & that's the point. I expect more from a party that is supposed to represent ordinary people against the forces of capitalism and having watched them suck up to & ingratiate themselves with the worst of the capitalists, I am beyond disappointed and I cannot in all conscience vote for them.

The SNP were not set up to defend the working man against big business or the poor against the rich. they were set up to campaign for an independent Scotland. The fact that they have moved from that single issue base to being a modern social democratic party who have successfully run the bit of government they are allowed to run in Scotland & they've done it pretty fairly is commendable. I don't expect them to be fighting for the poor or the oppressed so when they do a wee bit of it, I'll give them credit for it.

In the scenario we are contemplating now, where we have the prospect of labour & the SNP between them holding over 50% of the seats in Westminster & thus ruling out any prospect of a Tory government. the questions for me as I stride towards the ballot box are "who offers the best outcome for Scotland?" & "who offers the best outcome for the UK?"

My answer to both is probably the SNP - for the first question - its a no-brainer to me -they've got a Holyrood election to win next year - of course they will act in Scotland's interests. But the UK's interests? how come? Well any influence they have over a Labour government will not be to push the Labour party further right - no one (not even Neil) is suggesting that - they might persuade labour to moderate their austerity fetish a bit - they might influence labour on trident - they might actually persuade labour to do something about the House of Lords after years of empty promises. What they won't do is oppose any labour tax rises for the rich and they will offer Labour support in defending our EU membership.

And of course they might bring Independence from Scotland closer allowing us once & for all to escape the Westminster cesspit.

Incidentally, I am still genuinely undecided as to who i will vote for in May. It's between green & SNP & although I may set a slightly lower standard for the SNP, I still need to hear more about their election stance on a number of issues. I also need to be convinced that they are serious about playing a constructive role in the government of the UK - as long as we are in the UK, I want it to work as well & as fairly as possible.

[LJS]

I thought this was worth the time I spent reading it

An English Labourman Speaks

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/03/19/an-english-labourman-speaks/#comments

I read the first twenty or thirty below the line comments & they are amongst the most open, sensible & constructive comments I've seen in a comments section. & at least for as far as i read - nutter free.

perhaps this is the sort of conversation that should be happening more.

Edited March 20, 2015 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

Just quoting key bits I disagree with LJS, not ignoring or dismissing the rest of it:

I genuinely believe most of you are way off the mark most of the time.

Can you give examples? This makes it sound like we're spouting raving nonsense and you're correcting us idiots. In other words, that phrase is Neil-level patronising.

I expect more from a party that is supposed to represent ordinary people against the forces of capitalism and having watched them suck up to & ingratiate themselves with the worst of the capitalists, I am beyond disappointed and I cannot in all conscience vote for them.

Got any examples of current senior Labour figures, or examples in the past 3 years?

To contrast, I'll reference something Neil's fond of, Salmond sucking up to Murdoch. How does this not feel like hypocrisy?

the questions for me as I stride towards the ballot box are "who offers the best outcome for Scotland?" & "who offers the best outcome for the UK?"

My answer to both is probably the SNP - for the first question - its a no-brainer to me -they've got a Holyrood election to win next year - of course they will act in Scotland's interests. But the UK's interests? how come? Well any influence they have over a Labour government will not be to push the Labour party further right - no one (not even Neil) is suggesting that - they might persuade labour to moderate their austerity fetish a bit - they might influence labour on trident - they might actually persuade labour to do something about the House of Lords after years of empty promises. What they won't do is oppose any labour tax rises for the rich and they will offer Labour support in defending our EU membership.

Of course SNP could push Labour further right. If Labour run a minority government (not a coalition), they will have to get votes from other parties. Sometimes, those parties will be Green/Plaid/SNP. Sometimes those parties will be Lib Dems/SNP. Sometimes it will be the Tories. Labour will far prefer playing the centre-ground and getting Lib Dems and Tory rebels on board, campaigning for 2020 on the grounds they could have done more and better with a majority, than they will cosying up up to nationalist parties or the Greens, who if are credited with influence on Labour, will take votes away from them on both ends of the political scale. The centrist voters will say Labour shouldn't have given them such leeway, the left-wing voters will will credit the smaller party and be more likely to vote for them.

This isn't me saying Labour are further right than the SNP btw. SNP are a centre-right party of similar political leanings to the Lib Dems - except with the goal of tearing the UK apart. I don't believe they have a single policy that is more left-leaning than the Lib Dems, who in general are right of Labour. I'm just grouping them with Greens and Plaid for the grounds of where perception (inc. yours) currently lies.

And of course they might bring Independence from Scotland closer allowing us once & for all to escape the Westminster cesspit.

Selfish twat, thinking the rest of us should wallow in shit while you run off laughing with your fee tuition fees.

Nah, we've been over the "I think campaigning for independence because you dislike the structure of the UK gov is selfish" argument a few times. I don't think you can convince me otherwise, and you seem to have accepted that selfish sense as worth it.

[LJS]

hey Kaos, nice to deal with a civilised post that doesn't accuse me of being insane:)

Just quoting key bits I disagree with LJS, not ignoring or dismissing the rest of it:

Can you give examples? This makes it sound like we're spouting raving nonsense and you're correcting us idiots. In other words, that phrase is Neil-level patronising.

This was in relation to Neil's allegations of the SNP mugging the poor to fund the middle classes i think, which as ever is a gross over simplification particularly as the SNP government is unable to tax the rich whether they want to or not!

Got any examples of current senior Labour figures, or examples in the past 3 years?

Well they have trooped into the lobbies a few times in support of Tory austerity i believe. And there is this in the news today

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-open-to-the-charge-of-hypocrisy-after-failing-to-divulge-hedge-fund-managers-donation-10124387.html

but to a large extent I am judging labour on their record rather than their promises. I am also reacting to particular issues within the Scottish Labour Party which is now so anti SNP & so anti Independence that they woudl rather lose about 25-30% of their core vote than engage in grown up debate on the issues that concern its own members. ans woudl rather stand side by side with t he Tories than engage with their own members. There is no idealogical issue that should prevent you supporting the labour party & Scottish independence. The Labour Party has made it so

To contrast, I'll reference something Neil's fond of, Salmond sucking up to Murdoch. How does this not feel like hypocrisy?

I have no truck with Murdoch, never have had, never will. if you can find one word from me justifying Salmond's relationship with Murdoch, you will be doing well. But he is in no way exceptional in his pursuit of Rupert's affections. it may be unattractive but the path to Rupert's bedroom is a well worn one by politicians of every flavour. I have no idea how unsavoury Alec's dealings with Rupert were & neither do you or Neil. Neil of course makes it out to be the worst corruption in the history of European democracy. I suspect the truth is rather les sensational although not in any way admirable.

Of course SNP could push Labour further right. If Labour run a minority government (not a coalition), they will have to get votes from other parties. Sometimes, those parties will be Green/Plaid/SNP. Sometimes those parties will be Lib Dems/SNP. Sometimes it will be the Tories. Labour will far prefer playing the centre-ground and getting Lib Dems and Tory rebels on board, campaigning for 2020 on the grounds they could have done more and better with a majority, than they will cosying up up to nationalist parties or the Greens, who if are credited with influence on Labour, will take votes away from them on both ends of the political scale. The centrist voters will say Labour shouldn't have given them such leeway, the left-wing voters will will credit the smaller party and be more likely to vote for them.

Not really sure I followed you logic here. if they are a minority government labour will have a choice who they get support from to get legislation through parliament. If i understand you right, I'm a little surprised that you seem to be suggesting that they may get their support from the Tories - hardly the sign of a vibrant left wing party.

This isn't me saying Labour are further right than the SNP btw. SNP are a centre-right party of similar political leanings to the Lib Dems - except with the goal of tearing the UK apart. I don't believe they have a single policy that is more left-leaning than the Lib Dems, who in general are right of Labour. I'm just grouping them with Greens and Plaid for the grounds of where perception (inc. yours) currently lies.

"tearing the UK apart"???? This is a typical inflamatory use of language to make what all of us nasty Nats want seem really unpleasant. i do not wish to tear anything apart. I wish to see Scotland & the UK come to an amicable agreement to end our 300 year union. Nothing needs to be torn apart.

Selfish twat, thinking the rest of us should wallow in shit while you run off laughing with your fee tuition fees.

So which is it Kaos? are we economically fucked by £4 or 6 or 8 billion a year or whatever today's figure is or are we selfish money grabbing bastards? make your mind up - you cannot have them both.

Nah, we've been over the "I think campaigning for independence because you dislike the structure of the UK gov is selfish" argument a few times. I don't think you can convince me otherwise, and you seem to have accepted that selfish sense as worth it.

I genuinely don't understand this sentence. not being cheeky but i don't know what point you are making. But I would make the point that it is not particularly the structure of the UK government I am opposed to (although there is much to criticise) it is its institutional links to the establishment both traditional & financial which limit its ability to effect real & meaningful change for the better in society. That's how it seems to me anyway (just in case you think I am proclaiming this as unchallenged fact -I know no one would ever present their own opinions as fact on here!!!!!!!!)

[LJS]

Oh, look...

"ED Miliband could sign up to Nicola Sturgeon's demand for billions of pounds of extra public spending and still meet his financial targets, a leading economic think tank has said.

The First Minister was accused of wanting to "bankrupt Britain" when she first made her call last month.

But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said new figures in this week's Budget showed that not only was her plan feasible, but if Labour agreed to the proposals the party could still meet its aim to balance UK's books by 2020."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/wider-political-news/ifs-labour-could-sign-up-to-nicola-sturgeons-call-for-billions-extra-i.121222793

[eFestivals]

The "pay rise" was agreed by all parties.

I know. Including the SNP. Unanimously.

You keep saying that you support the SNP because they look after the poor.

And yet this is them gifting themselves a payrise to their already plenty-decent wages, instead of doing something for the poor.

I'm merely pointing out that they're no different to other politicians, who put themselves first. They are not the 'better' you claim for them.

Edited March 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Oh, look...

"ED Miliband could sign up to Nicola Sturgeon's demand for billions of pounds of extra public spending and still meet his financial targets, a leading economic think tank has said.

The First Minister was accused of wanting to "bankrupt Britain" when she first made her call last month.

But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said new figures in this week's Budget showed that not only was her plan feasible, but if Labour agreed to the proposals the party could still meet its aim to balance UK's books by 2020."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/wider-political-news/ifs-labour-could-sign-up-to-nicola-sturgeons-call-for-billions-extra-i.121222793

erm ... Labour don't even have a policy to "balance UK's books by 2020". They have a policy to balance the books by 2020 on a day-to-day spending basis, but not on an investment spending basis.

Sturgeon has been suggesting extra day-to-day spending, not extra investment spending.

Meanwhile, as that article points out, what the IFS are saying about Sturgeon only stands up not because of fantastic economic abilities, but only because the economy is stronger than everyone (Sturgeon included) had thought.

And you're claimig her lucky guess as something credible.

Meanwhile, you still cannot say "iScotland would be completely fucked with the current low oil prices". Anyone might think you're talking up bolllocks and talking down facts.

Edited March 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Too many points - many rather bizarre -neil continuing his campaign for his own daily mail column by conjuring up images of SNP MSP's mugging poor people & dishing out the proceeds to the middle classes - "free sushi for morningside"

there's no conjuring involved. It's what the SNP have done.

Or did the money for those middle-class privileges come from the magic money tree?

And of course they might bring Independence from Scotland closer allowing us once & for all to escape the Westminster cesspit.

When GERS came out, I had the opportunity to re-learn all the same well-worn phrases of the cybernats.

With yesterday's UKIPpery, I got to see all all of the same fact-free assertions in all of the same words.

"Once Scotland/UK is free of those nasty people in Westminster/Brussels we can run our own country and vote for whoever we want to govern us and Scotland/UK will be a gloriously better place."

And then you ask them to get their policies to stand up to the facts of the real world, and then there is only endless guff.

Edited March 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This was in relation to Neil's allegations of the SNP mugging the poor to fund the middle classes i think, which as ever is a gross over simplification particularly as the SNP government is unable to tax the rich whether they want to or not!

Oh FFS, LJS, when will you ever actually engage with what is actually said?

My comment about robbing the poor for middle class privileges is fuck all to do with their non-ability to tax the rich.

It's that THEY ARE ROBBING THE POOR!!

And put against them robbing the poor are you and the millions like you in Scotland, who say you support the SNP because the SNP look after the poor and Labour don't.

The facts prove you wrong.

But you never do facts, so you'll stick to your vacuous assertion.

[eFestivals]

Well they have trooped into the lobbies a few times in support of Tory austerity i believe

and the SNP haven't trooped thru the lobbies to vote against.

The SNP couldn't even be bothered to vote against the Bedroom tax and vote Scotland more money by doing so.

They're working a scam (a scam you might claim is also done by others; the point is the SNP do it too!!) where they say one thing to Scotland and do another at Westminster, to mug the very many who aren't paying attention to their duplicity.

You, clearly, because you cannot bring yourself to criticise them when they rightly deserve criticism.

[eFestivals]

I have no truck with Murdoch, never have had, never will. if you can find one word from me justifying Salmond's relationship with Murdoch, you will be doing well.

and if I can find one word from you condemning Salmond's relationship with Murdoch, I will be doing well.

You can't even do it here, you speak bollocks about how he's doing the same as other politicians, when the game has changed and Murdoch is now only buddies with Salmond and Farage.

I have no idea how unsavoury Alec's dealings with Rupert were & neither do you or Neil.

I know that Salmond LIED about his dealings with Murdoch, to try and hide his dealings with Murdoch from the people of Scotland (despite having those same people pay for those meetings).

That's plenty unsavoury enough for me. A little gang of Murdoch, Salmond and Farage is more unsavoury than anything around Labour and Murdoch, or even today's tories and Murdoch.

[eFestivals]

Not really sure I followed you logic here. if they are a minority government labour will have a choice who they get support from to get legislation through parliament. If i understand you right, I'm a little surprised that you seem to be suggesting that they may get their support from the Tories - hardly the sign of a vibrant left wing party.

Do you think the SNP have the monopoly on good policies?

The SNP will certainly be the largest party with the monopoly on economic incompetence. Their own history (tho only via speeches, due to the lack of power to implement luckily for Scotland) is unequalled even by the tories - and the SNP's record is to the right of the tories too!

Edited March 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

"tearing the UK apart"???? This is a typical inflamatory use of language to make what all of us nasty Nats want seem really unpleasant. i do not wish to tear anything apart. I wish to see Scotland & the UK come to an amicable agreement to end our 300 year union. Nothing needs to be torn apart.

Our common national identity will be torn part.

Our economies will be torn apart.

Our joint venture in helping each other will be torn apart.

Our ability to share the future will be torn apart.

Our shared rules will be torn apart.

And because of the realities of the world, our interactivity will be torn apart by the creation of borders - which is being done *ONLY* at Scotland's behest.

If Salmond's white paper had been how things had played out - and it's what you voted in support of happening, don't forget, without the ability to stop Salmond's plan - it would have required border posts because of Schengen (only Scotland's doing, and an EU absolute), and border posts because of different immigration rules, and currency changes because of different currencies (if Scotland thinks that rUK will be its financial guarantor, Scotland is insane), etc, etc, etc.

It's all very well having dreams, but there's a real world that won't go away no matter what you vote in support of.

[eFestivals]

are we economically fucked by £4 or 6 or 8 billion a year or whatever today's figure is or are we selfish money grabbing bastards? make your mind up - you cannot have them both.

It can be both.

Scotland is economically fucked, no matter what.

But because you refuse to accept that reality, and because Salonmd sold you the lie of jam from the sky, it's exceedigly clear that the thought of extra money is a huge driver of the false indy dream.

How well do you think the vote would have gone if Salmond had laid out the true economic situation, and snippers had sense enough to actually accept it (in the opposite way to how they will never accept the truth of GERS despite that being the solemn word of Salmond)?

[LJS]

I know. Including the SNP. Unanimously.

You keep saying that you support the SNP because they look after the poor.

And yet this is them gifting themselves a payrise to their already plenty-decent wages, instead of doing something for the poor.

I'm merely pointing out that they're no different to other politicians, who put themselves first. They are not the 'better' you claim for them.

You've kind of missed the point Neil, in order to make a cheap political point. Let me just repeat that the Scottish parliament unanimously voted to leave a system which would have given them a 10% pay increase & instead have voted themselves a 0.7% pay rise, in line with public sector workers. You can just as easily present that as a 9% cut in pay.

Personally I think linking MP's pay to public sector pay is an excellent idea. What do you think?

Edited March 21, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

You've kind of missed the point Neil, in order to make a cheap political point. Let me just repeat that the Scottish parliament unanimously voted to leave a system which would have given them a 10% pay increase & instead have voted themselves a 0.7% pay rise, in line with public sector workers. You can just as easily present that as a 9% cut in pay.

but they still voted themselves more money. They didn't vote the poor more money.

I'm not condemning just the SNP for that, but I AM condemning snippers giving the SNP a free pass over it.

Those of your mindset would be slagging those other parties to high heaven if it had been them leading the charge for more money, even for this small amount.

Personally I think linking MP's pay to public sector pay is an excellent idea. What do you think?

Nope, that's a shit idea. It would merely have those same politicians vote themselves more money while also gifting it to public servants with little reference to consequences.

Far better would be a wider tie. At worst, that should be to average full-time work incomes (say: 2 times average income), or even better an income measure that somehow also included those doing part-time work but wanting full-time, and recipients of benefits.

That way, politicians only get a pay rise if they've also given the whole country a pay rise, and the wealth gap is then fixed forever instead of growing ever-larger.

Edited March 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

"Once Scotland/UK is free of those nasty people in Westminster/Brussels we can run our own country and vote for whoever we want to govern us and Scotland/UK will be a gloriously better place."

Vote SNP/UKIP. It's common sense, innit?

[LJS]

Our common national identity will be torn part.

Our economies will be torn apart.

Our joint venture in helping each other will be torn apart.

Our ability to share the future will be torn apart.

Our shared rules will be torn apart.

Alternatively

Our common National identity (Britishness) will remain as a geographical rather than a political identity.

Our economies will diverge although there would still be cooperation

Our joint ventures in helping each other will continue where appropriate & desirable

our ability to share the future will as friends & neighbours will remain

As we already have seperate legal systems there would be no change here

It's all about how you phrase things, Neil.

[LJS]

but they still voted themselves more money. They didn't vote the poor more money.

I'm not condemning just the SNP for that, but I AM condemning snippers giving the SNP a free pass over it.

Those of your mindset would be slagging those other parties to high heaven if it had been them leading the charge for more money, even for this small amount.

Nope, that's a shit idea. It would merely have those same politicians vote themselves more money while also gifting it to public servants with little reference to consequences.

Far better would be a wider tie. At worst, that should be to average full-time work incomes (say: 2 times average income), or even better an income measure that somehow also included those doing part-time work but wanting full-time, and recipients of benefits.

That way, politicians only get a pay rise if they've also given the whole country a pay rise, and the wealth gap is then fixed forever instead of growing ever-larger.

its still better than the Westminster way.

[Comfy Bean]

My comment about robbing the poor for middle class privileges is fuck all to do with their non-ability to tax the rich.

It's that THEY ARE ROBBING THE POOR!!

And put against them robbing the poor are you and the millions like you in Scotland, who say you support the SNP because the SNP look after the poor and Labour don't.

The facts prove you wrong.

All your concern for " the poor " as you put it doesn`t really stand up though does it although I accept your concern is genuine. " The poor " in Dundee Glasgow etc voted to leave the UK behind.

You stood / stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories, Murdoch, the bankers and various other establishment types and denied them the opportunity to be independent of Westminster.

Every Indy poll now shows a YES majority. NS is widely regarded in Scotland as having made a positive start. The SNP look to add to their 6 seats at the next GE. The YES movement seems ( on the ground ) to be looking to the future in a positive, confident manner.

The whole greed / jam / oil stuff has been shown up to be nonsense ( who knew ) as the oil price is down the stank but support for Indy continues to grow.

Fair enough if you think that Scotland couldn`t be an Independent Country ( or even a country ) but how do you explain the continuing rise in support amongst the people of Scotland ?

On the polls......if the graph of support continues duringthe next decade the way it has been rising over the past 10 years then the dream ( for some ) will be realised

I mentioned the other day that we " could " see a situation one day where zero Tory MP`s are returned from Scotland, Wales Northern Ireland but......." we " still end up with a Tory Government in our Kingdom. Surely this is more than a little silly.

[Comfy Bean]

A little gang of Murdoch, Salmond and Farage is more unsavoury than anything around Labour and Murdoch, or even today's tories and Murdoch.

Fortunately, everyone on here on either side of the debate will know that this " little gang " exists only in your head. You hadn`t mentioned Murdoch for a while as he ended up after all on board with you on the Indy debate.

I have never seen anyone on here defend Salmond over his relationship with Murdoch. Not once. You keep bringing it up while forgetting the whole political system flashes the knickers at him ( to their shame ). A bit like our football clubs ( well not mine ).

[Comfy Bean]

I see LJS has already dealt with the " torn apart " stuff. Firm hand shakes all round and maybe a cuddle as we both head off in our own directions was how I saw it. Huge amount of continued trade, working together as the friendliest of neighbours. " Torn apart " is sensationalist guff imo.

We ( Scotland ) are always going to be the junior partner due to the numbers. I`ve said before that while I disagree with the way the Tories treat Scotland as 2nd class citizens I understand the maths in that they have nothing to lose ( seats wise ). They don`t give a shit, or atleast they didn`t until about 4 days before the Indy vote.......

A YES vote would have meant no Tory Govt again for me in my lifetime. Now we have talk of some of the good folks in England wanting us out the Empire which would probably mean continuing Tory Govts forever for them. Clearly we have a lot of political differences within our Union but the biggest partner will ( nearly ) always win.

As we have also discussed before, I think that an Indy Scotland would give the Labour party the chance to return to where they originated from. I would really want that to happen as the SNP are odds on to wipe them out up here next year and that is good for no-one going forward.

In an Indy Scotland minus Jimbo, Labour would be back in business and could maybe even hang on to the Union support.